Photoshop VS Photography

[freewolf]

<blockquote>

<p>No photograph you can see is unmanipulated whether shot on film or digitally. The question is without meaning, and it indicates a failure to understand both film and digital photographic processes.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Larry, in a general sense you're absolutely right. However, this question is VERY meaningful in terms of the OP's questions, which specifically address the Photo.net site and its own definition of manipulated/unmanipulated. With that in mind, your response indicates a failure to understand the OP's questions. Or would you have it that PN's administrators also fail to understand "both film and digital photographic processes" because they dared to create such a working definition?</p>

[Paul Lewis1664881697]

<p>I believe there is a line between a photograph and an overly-manipulated image. Where it is, I can't tell you, but I know it when I see it. I laugh at those that believe that I don't have the right to make that distinction and discount something that is phony.</p>

[dhhensler]

<p>Kevin..<br>

Thank you for the response. I appreciate your candor and honesty. Your comments about the use of the term "manipulated" as it pertains to PN was exactly what I've been meaning to type in response to Larry and the others, but simply didn't have a chance to get to it this morning at work. <br /> <br /> I knew when I posted my question that all they naysayers would come out and quickly shout me out with the merits of PS, which I don't dispute. I agree that having a workable filter for manipulated versus unmanipulated photos would be a great addition to PN. Before another round of "every photo is manipulated" responses start.. Let me just say I'm using a operational definition such as the one used here on PN. <br /> <br /> Thanks to everyone for the input and feedback...</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> I find it an interesting exercise when I find an image whose photographic "authenticity" is more questionable to try and determine if and/or how it was manipulated.</p>

<p>Photographic authenticity? What the heck is that? Funny...</p>

<p><br /></p>

[mike dixon]

<blockquote>

<p>When I click details for an image and it says "Unknown or Yes" for the "Manipulated" field, how can I tell if it was truly manipulated or simply a stunning photograph? This is a real issue for me as I like to get ideas and inspiration from other members but find my self inclined to doubt the nature of the image if it I do not know whether it was manipulated or not.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>To answer your question: You can't know unless you can glean that distinction from looking at the photo. Most of the photos in my photo.net gallery are scans of black & white prints, but I've never bothered with checking "unmanipulated" because it's a completely arbitrary definition--it really means, "only manipulated in ways that I'm accustomed to and comfortable with."</p>

<p>If you are only able to get inspiration from photographs that you consider unmanipulated, you're severely (and unnecessarily) limiting yourself. I get photographic inspiration from photos, painting, writing, music, and life itself. Whether an image is manipulated or not doesn't affect its ability to inspire.</p>

[dhhensler]

<p>Mike.. Thanks for the feedback. I do find inspiration everywhere in the world. But when I see an image I would like to know if I can realisticly try and recreate something similiar without the aid of PS or other software. What I mean is; using exposure and some cropping can I try to capture something similiar or was that image the result of extensive artistic manipulation. </p>

[freewolf]

<p>Brad, you'll note that I place the word "authenticity" in quotation marks... It's disingenuous to pretend that there is not a difference between (for example)...</p>

<p>this -- <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/7830894">http://www.photo.net/photo/7830894</a></p>

<p>and this -- <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8376274">http://www.photo.net/photo/8376274</a></p>

<p>The use of the word was clearly to indicate the difference between "unmanipulated" and "manipulated" as put forth by PN's administrators. Again, most of the responses here blatantly skirt the fact that PN has a definition in place, and it is to this definition that the OP refers.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>it really means, "only manipulated in ways that I'm accustomed to and comfortable with."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Mike, I submit that to the OP and some of us others, and for the intended purposes of this discussion, it actually means...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<h2>Unmanipulated</h2>

<ul>

<li>a single uninterrupted exposure </li>

<li>cropping to taste </li>

<li>common adjustments to the entire image, e.g., color temperature, curves, sharpening, desaturation to black and white </li>

<li>dust spots on sensor cloned out </li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>PS -- I mean absolutely no denigration of works such as the second I linked to above. While a significant number of images using extensive post-processing are blatant crap, a great many are very interesting and appealing artistic works. At issue here (and I believe OP agrees) is not whether there is merit in such works, but why there is not a useful site distinction for the purposes of those who would rather focus their attention on unmanipulated images (as defined by this site). I don't consider myself to be "severely (and unnecessarily) limiting" myself... I consider myself to be trying to learn in-camera fundamentals, whether or not I decide to continue further into the realm of image manipulation. </p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>"What I mean is; using exposure and some cropping can I try to capture something similiar or was that image the result of extensive artistic manipulation."</p>

<p>That may be a goal but that's not a digital versus film sort of issue. That's an image by image question. "Manipulation" can imply some kind of artificiality or lack of reality but that's always been the case. </p>

<p>If one were to look at landscape photography, even something like the film selected to shoot with made a difference, was Kodachrome selected? Or some of the negative films with very different color and saturation? "Exposure time" makes a difference - a long exposure can make water silky or take moving objects out of a picture. Are those "manipulations?" They don't really represent what one would have seen at the point in time the picture was taken.</p>

<p>There's a question out there now dealing with the look of eyes on Civil War era images. The "look" (at this point in the answer stream) may be that the emulsions of the time had different response characteristics so different eye colors look different than we see or see now in pictures and that exposure times were such that often there was blinking or eye motion during the exposure. Even if one didn't judge that a manipulation in the original, would re-creating that result be a manipulation? If done in processing or by camera settings before taking the picture?</p>

<p>There's always some kind of technical impact on the image from the whole system of actions that create an image. </p>

 

[dhhensler]

<p>Amen Kevin... My sentiments exactly...</p>

[mike dixon]

<p>Cropping and adjustments to color temperature, curves, and saturation are very-significant manipulations which often have a profound effect on the mood and impact of an image. The term "unmanipulated" is clearly inaccurate; it's unfortunate that photo.net made up such an arbitrary definition to satisfy the complaints of users who thought it "unfair" to compare "unmanipulated" photos to ones which had other kinds of modifications.</p>

<p>Other than "a single uninterrupted exposure," none of the things listed above are aspects of in-camera fundamentals.</p>

[dhhensler]

<p>Mike, I hope you aren't implying that I have made any complaints to PN about unfair comparisons between unmanipulated images and ones with other modifications? To do so would be disingenuous to my original post and questions. </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>A variation on this comes up in other discussions - especially about lighting. Not a week goes by without someone asking how - in camera - they can achieve a particular look. They link to something that may indeed not have had any post production manipulation outside the bounds Kevin cites above... but which the photographer - without saying as much, nor having a checkbox assigned for this purpose - has used a truck load of specialized lighting gear, hideously expensive tilt-shift lenses, a dozen radio triggers, a smoke machine, special polarizers, and a crew of six people in order to create a single, deceptively simple looking, unmanipulated exposure of an evening restaurant scene. My point is that being told the image wasn't maniacally worked over after the fact still doesn't reduce the need for a genuinely curious student to <em>ask the photographer</em> how it was done. Because pre-exposure manipulation can be fantastically more time consuming, equipment intensive, and deliberately deceptive as the post work.<br /><br />As for Kevin's example of disembodied arms holding flowers while mingling with floating architecture? I'll take one for the team, here, and actually come right out and say it's not very appealing.<br /><br />There! I've done it. I'm a judgemental ass! :-) I've earned the right, though, by not crying when I get e-mail from people who think I'm a monster for using studio strobes on puppies when I could just use candle light and a D3, and fix it all up with curve adjustments in photoshop, later.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> Brad, you'll note that I place the word "authenticity" in quotation marks... It's disingenuous to pretend that there is not a difference between (for example)...</p>

<p>What's disingenuous is claiming the second photo as representative of the thrust of your argument. And just an FYI, the first photo is manipulated. And all of my photos are manipulated; and that's OK. I don't need labels to define my photography.<br>

<br /><br>

If you're a new photographer, you sure are worrying about stuff will only stunt your growth in the long run.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> Brad, you'll note that I place the word "authenticity" in quotation marks... It's disingenuous to pretend that there is not a difference between (for example)...</p>

<p>What's disingenuous is claiming the second photo as representative of the thrust of your argument. And just an FYI, the first photo is manipulated. And all of my photos are manipulated; and that's OK. I don't need labels to define my photography.<br>

<br /><br>

If you're a new photographer, you sure are worrying about stuff will only stunt your growth in the long run.</p>

[mike dixon]

<p>David, no, that wasn't my implication. I was simply explaining a bit about the origins of photo.net's definition--it had little to do with historical precedents, logic, or an accurate definition of unmanipulated.</p>

 

[patricklavoie]

<blockquote>

<p>Cropping and adjustments to color temperature, curves, and saturation are very-significant manipulations which often have a profound effect on the mood and impact of an image. The term "unmanipulated" is clearly inaccurate</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Would it be different if it was done at the monent when the shot was done? you can frame, add a polarizer, add a cockin filter to warm the scene, and use a saturation setting ..would it be manipulated? because i dont see anything talking about that in the *rules*.</p>

<p>I think anything that is purely darkroom related, as other mention, and PN rules, is normal. Nobody ask me 15years ago if it was natural to have a darker vignette around my images; they all think its was normal. Now in digital, why would that be manipulation?</p>

<p>When you see a butterfly well developed, it should be a well developed butterfly. When you see a transparent guy holding a flower thru a red brick arch..that should be obvious ; )</p>

[freewolf]

<p>I suppose I should simply quit stunting my growth... Why bother with DOF or motion blur when I can easily photoshop it in? Why bother blowing the money on a nice fast fisheye lens when I can contort the image every which way using my keyboard? Why sink a couple grand or more into DSLR gear when a cheap P&S and some nifty software will do the same stuff? In fact, I suppose it's stunting my growth to "worry" about such silly, backward stuff as aperture, shutter speed, lighting, and optics... it seems that the real photographers know that photoshop has rendered all those quaint little topics obsolete.</p>

<p>I think I'd rather be a midget, thank you. Condescension is neither attractive nor helpful, Brad, but thanks for enlightening us just the same.</p>

<p>Mike, despite its origins and its shortcomings, the PN definition could very well be a useful tool in learning in-camera technique. For the most part it appears to address manipulation issues that generally detract little from an observation of how certain effects were achieved by the photographer's use of the camera itself, and this is where I find its potential value. Imagine my dismay to find out that PN came up with this clarification just to shut the yaps of some whiners, only to throw it in its little closet to gather dust.</p>

<p>David, when all is said and done, I'd say the most useful thing for like-minded folks to do is to follow Matt's (oft-repeated) advice to "ask the photographer". Like you, I'd just like a more effective way of narrowing down which photographers I'd like to ask than having to slog through the often dismal mass of heavily-PSed images to find them.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> I think I'd rather be a midget, thank you. Condescension is neither attractive nor helpful, Brad, but thanks for enlightening us just the same.</p>

<p>That wasn't condescending; you might want to ask others what "stunting your growth" means. </p>

<p>It's about your <i>growth</i> as a <i>photographer</i>. If you relish in deliberate misinterpretation and being a victim, that's OK, but it really is disingenuous of you. </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I suppose I should simply quit stunting my growth... Why bother with DOF or motion blur when I can easily photoshop it in? Why bother blowing the money on a nice fast fisheye lens when I can contort the image every which way using my keyboard? Why sink a couple grand or more into DSLR gear when a cheap P&S and some nifty software will do the same stuff?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What does it matter which tools you used if it got the photo to where you want it? There are no rules in photography, it's about communication and how you use the four borders, not which tools you use. Obsessing about the tools only distracts from what the photograph should be about. It seems that this is a gearhead issue, not a photography issue.</p>

[mwaks]

<p>It's not so much a gear head issue as it is a problem where people think that only using the camera as the primary tool is art and that any post production work on the film or digital negative is some form of corruption or cheating. Some people will always stick to this limited view of photography because it is very simple and requires little in the way of learning new technology involving computers. I suspect many of these diehards never used an enlarger and just had a lab do everything.</p>

[dhhensler]

<p>Michael, I feel as though you didn't read my original post at all. I never claimed that only using the camera as the primary tool is art and everything els is some form of corruption or cheating. I simply asked two questions.<br>

1. How can I tell<br>

2. Are they the same type of art.</p>

<p>Nobody is trying to argue that painting is more of a true art than sculptur is. Just the same, I am not advocating straight out of the camera images over PS works. I simply asked if they are the same medium or if we have advanced to the point that they should be viewed as different. If one more person trots out the the tired "every image is manipulated" argument I'll really start to lose some respect for this forum. Which means nothing to anybody so that is completely hollow. I'm just saying...</p>

[tholte]

<p>I think most of these manipulated/non-manipulated threads are silly but because there seem to be quite a few posters that dislike manipulation of any kind, I don't see why a "non-manipulated" forum category couldn't be established. Don't even have a moderator, just let those that don't believe in manipulation post what ever they want. It would be fascinating to see what they think is not manipulated and it would be interesting to see if any of the images caught on with the viewers. As an amateur social scientist, I would love to see how the forum evolved over time. </p>

[mwaks]

<p>David: At this point I'm responding to the group and not particularly your initial post. But getting back to your questions...<br>

1. How can you tell? Sloppy selection work will have bad edges. Over the top color adjustments, over done sharpening with halo's around the edges.<br>

On the other hand: As someone else in this thread said: If you can't tell then who cares? Good photoshop technique will keep things looking pretty much like traditional photography if that is what the photographer desires.<br>

2. Are they the same type of art? As I have mentioned in my first post, what comes out of the camera is a draft. A draft much like a drawing starts with just the basic sketch. It's up to the photoshop user to bring out the colors, sharpness, cropping and contrast ect to the level they want.<br>

Generally what comes out of a digital camera and lens, no matter what the cost will not live up to it's maximum potential without post processing. Photoshop to Adobes fortune is the best postprocessing software out there. Such is the nature of Digital photography and so it is with those who use a film darkroom.</p>

[tomwatt]

<p>David, an interesting set of questions, as the torrent of responses reveal.<br>

Personally, I try to not manipulate my images. Adjust color balance, contrast, sharpness, etc. in post processing. I don't see the digital image as any different than the latent image in film, just a source to be brought forward. The biggest difference for me is that with digital, I can attempt to bring the latent image out to match my original vision and if it does not suceed, I can dump it and try again with no loss or harm. Not possible with film to experiment that much.<br>

Chemistry mistakes don't happen in digital. That's kind of a plus.<br>

A whole category of retouching and restoration isn't tackled in your question, but when you think about it, digital makes that much easier than getting out the spotting brush and magnifier and going after a print.</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>David, I do think think photo.net has become more of a showcase of digital illustration than photography. I agree that there is some truely wonderful digital illustration on photo.net, but I don't get the point of calling it photography. I'm a painter, I have done many oil paintings from photographs. I would NEVER post my paintings to photo.net and call them photographs. Not only is it a rather obnoxious lie, but it waters down the content takes away the focus of the website. This isn't "photo-related-images.net" it's "photo.net" and I really don't understand why digital paintings are even tolerated at all. And again, it's not because I don't find many of them beautiful or inspiring, but I just don't understand what these images have to do with THIS website. Certainly, in the vast expanses of the interwebs, there is plenty of room for a website similar to photo.net that focuses specifcally on review and critique of digital paintings, maybe even an offshoot website. </p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/6187386</p>

<p>This image which was recently featured on the photo.net homepage is a great example. It's a stunning peice of a digital art, but it is most certainly not a photograph. It is perhaps half a dozen photographs digitally painted together to look like the work of a PAINTER... specifically like Magritte. Now... I have seen images where photographers attempted to capture the spirit of a painter's work in a photograph, and it would certainly be possible to capture the spirit of Magritte in a photograph. But that is not what this is. This is a peiced together collage of images, an illustration. Yes it's stunning. But is it a photograph? No I don't think so.</p>